What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

exchemist said:
Ok. It's the notion of an "inertial relationship", whatever that is, being in some way faster than light that I can't understand. But if it was in correspondence with Mach, I feel fairly certain it was resolved by the development of relativity, rather than remaining a problem within it.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't think it is or even was a problem with it...

It demonstrates Einsteins incredible desire to leave no stone upturned in discovering how this universe works, even if it meant threatening his own theories...
This is why I suggested that it all depends on what people mean when they talk about the issue of light speed in-variance.
I guess he was trying to figure out why the laws of physics are universally invariant, re: the first Postulate.
"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."

Testing the postulates must have taken up a lot of time for him.. I would speculate....

Then along comes the discovery of various anomalies that suggest that the 1st postulate may not be as valid as first thought. ie. Dark Flow, Great Attractor and even the CBR cold spot super void. To name only three...
 
Quantum Quack said:
Oh I don't think it is or even was a problem with it...

It demonstrates Einsteins incredible desire to leave no stone upturned in discovering how this universe works, even if it meant threatening his own theories...
This is why I suggested that it all depends on what people mean when they talk about the issue of light speed in-variance.
I guess he was trying to figure out why the laws of physics are universally invariant, re: the first Postulate.
"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."

Testing the postulates must have taken up a lot of time for him.. I would speculate....

Then along comes the discovery of various anomalies that suggest that the 1st postulate may not be as valid as first thought. ie. Dark Flow, Great Attractor and even the CBR cold spot super void. To name only three...
Click to expand...
You have yet to explain how any of those hypotheses (which is all they are at present) suggest that the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames of reference. Please do that.
 
exchemist said:
You have yet to explain how any of those hypotheses (which is all they are at present) suggest that the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames of reference. Please do that.
Click to expand...
why would I do that?
Why do you think I would do that?
I happen to agree with the first postulate...
"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."
 
Last edited:
We should be mindful that Albert Einstein was not only a tremendous scientist, but also a visionary. His influence on science and the philosophy surrounding science, is beyond reproach, in my opinion. When we look for ways to debunk Einstein, it shows a lack of gratitude and humility for all that he gave through his tenacity and hard work. Einstein had quite a few naysayers and skeptics who mocked him. Not suggesting that you're mocking him, QQ - but sometimes, I think we lose sight of the hardships that scientists like Einstein went through, to pave the way for our progress, today.

There are scientists today who try to debunk Einstein, and it just seems like it's to make a name for themselves.
 
wegs said:
We should be mindful that Albert Einstein was not only a tremendous scientist, but also a visionary. His influence on science and the philosophy surrounding science, is beyond reproach, in my opinion. When we look for ways to debunk Einstein, it shows a lack of gratitude and humility for all that he gave through his tenacity and hard work. Einstein had quite a few naysayers and skeptics who mocked him. Not suggesting that you're mocking him, QQ - but sometimes, I think we lose sight of the hardships that scientists like Einstein went through, to pave the way for our progress, today.

There are scientists today who try to debunk Einstein, and it just seems like it's to make a name for themselves.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with the sentiment of your post.
I do think though that Einstein would be totally mortified and terribly dissappointed if science did not continue to endevor to find the solutions he failed to find because of the fear of being considered insolent and contemptuous of his amazing acheivements.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I fully agree with the sentiment of your post.
I do think though that Einstein would be totally mortified and terribly dissappointed if science did not continue to endevor to find the solutions he failed to find because of the fear of being considered insolent and contemptuous of his amazing acheivements.
Click to expand...
Agree, but that's not the same as ''proving him wrong.''
 
wegs said:
Agree, but that's not the same as ''proving him wrong.''
Click to expand...
To achieve what Einstein wanted to achieve but couldn't means that even Einstein would have to prove himself as wrong..
Given the significance of Einstein's work I think it is a fair and reasonable question to ask how science can progress it's ambitions of developing a TOE.

Admittedly the topic title tends to provoke those who are paranoid about motivation and sensitive to any criticism of Einstein.

Perhaps I could have been more politically correct ?
 
Quantum Quack said:
To achieve what Einstein wanted to achieve but couldn't means that even Einstein would have to prove himself as wrong..
Given the significance of Einstein's work I think it is a fair and reasonable question to ask how science can progress it's ambitions of developing a TOE.

Admittedly the topic title tends to provoke those who are paranoid about motivation and sensitive to any criticism of Einstein.

Perhaps I could have been more politically correct ?
Click to expand...
Yes, ask away. How can we get a theory of everything. Come up with a quantum theory of gravity. What's new?
 
Quantum Quack said:
ok...
Would the development of a TOE need to prove Einstein wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I think it would likely be more of a tweaking of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We know they both work in their realm. I guess it depends on what the TOE is and how you define "wrong".

Is the Big Bang "wrong" if it occurred 13.5 billion years ago vs 13.82 billion?
 
Seattle said:
I don't know. I think it would likely be more of a tweaking of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We know they both work in their realm. I guess it depends on what the TOE is and how you define "wrong".

Is the Big Bang "wrong" if it occurred 13.5 billion years ago vs 13.82 billion?
Click to expand...
well... this is what this thread was for.
For the erudite members of this forum, if they so choose to, to discuss what it would take to prove Albert Einstein wrong and develop the TOE that Albert himself could not do.
The point of my Topic wording is that it is inevitable that Einstein will be found to be in error if science is to progress towards a TOE.
Einstein himself could find no error however Ernst Mach was, reportedly, not so convinced.
To get to a proper discussion though, the political correctness that pervades this topic not only here at Sciforum's but elsewhere in academia, needs to be altered so that genuine discussion can actually take place.

We are at page three. Perhaps a discussion is possible after all...
Or perhaps a member can launch a new thread that is worded in a not so provocative manner.
 
Quantum Quack said:
well... this is what this thread was for.
For the erudite members of this forum, if they so choose to, to discuss what it would take to prove Albert Einstein wrong and develop the TOE that Albert himself could not do.
The point of my Topic wording is that it is inevitable that Einstein will be found to be in error if science is to progress towards a TOE.
Einstein himself could find no error however Ernst Mach was, reportedly, not so convinced.
To get to a proper discussion though, the political correctness that pervades this topic not only here at Sciforum's but elsewhere in academia, needs to be altered so that genuine discussion can actually take place.
After 20 years you still think that an answer is going to be found on a discussion forum? The answer isn't a philosophical answer.
We are at page three. Perhaps a discussion is possible after all...
Or perhaps a member can launch a new thread that is worded in a not so provocative manner.
Click to expand...
 
You'd be surprized what can be discovered in internet forums.
It always starts as a philosophical answer then it gets mathematical support to demonstrate the logic.
 
Quantum Quack said:
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Click to expand...
All that is necessary is internal inconsistency, say, singularities. This has been already done, GR has singularities, unavoidable, at the big bang and at the center of a black hole. So, GR is already proven wrong.

This does not prevent scientists to use GR as the best available theory of gravity they know about. So, an alternative would be certainly necessary to change this. But even this would not change much - scientists use Newtonian gravity too, whenever the differences between GR and NT seem clearly too small to be relevant.
 
wegs said:
When we look for ways to debunk Einstein, it shows a lack of gratitude and humility for all that he gave through his tenacity and hard work.
Click to expand...
Nobody in science cares about hard work of science or about tenacity. All that matters are the results of this work.
 
Schmelzer said:
All that is necessary is internal inconsistency, say, singularities. This has been already done, GR has singularities, unavoidable, at the big bang and at the center of a black hole. So, GR is already proven wrong.
Click to expand...

How does the existence of singularities prove anything wrong if their theoretical existence doesn't contradict anything we can actually observe and measure?

What actually does prove Einstein's theories wrong (at atomic scales) is the nonlocal nature of quantum reality, but last I heard you're not a believer in such truths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top